Large shortsword rule? Rules Compendium

[LordDeath666]

I read in rules Compendium that if you make a shortsword large it becomes one handed and if you make it huge it makes it two handed for a medium race(see below). Do I under stand this because the dm said that's not what it means.

WEAPON SIZE
A weapon’s size Isn’t the same as its size category as an object. Instead, a weapon’s size is the size category of the intended wielder. As objects, light weapons are two size categories smaller than the wielder, one-handed weapons are one size category smaller than the wielder, and two-handed weapons are the same size category as the wielder. (Rules Compendium pg.151)

[Deophaun]

You are correct that it changes handedness. However, it's also incorrectly sized, so you're going to take a penalty. Look to the "Inappropriately Sized Weapons" entry beneath what you quoted.

[LordDeath666]

Ok thank you

[Crake]

You are correct that it changes handedness. However, it's also incorrectly sized, so you're going to take a penalty. Look to the "Inappropriately Sized Weapons" entry beneath what you quoted.

It is worth noting that an optional rule that many DMs inadvertantly use is that a large shortsword is the same as a medium longsword, and a huge shortsword is the same as a medium greatsword. The default rules however are that, while a huge shortsword may be two handed like a greatsword, and deal 2d6 damage like a greatsword, it would also come with an associated -4 penalty for being two size categories wrong.

[Lapak]

It is worth noting that an optional rule that many DMs inadvertantly use is that a large shortsword is the same as a medium longsword, and a huge shortsword is the same as a medium greatsword. The default rules however are that, while a huge shortsword may be two handed like a greatsword, and deal 2d6 damage like a greatsword, it would also come with an associated -4 penalty for being two size categories wrong.And the penalty makes sense in my opinion, as a Huge shortsword would be shaped more like
something from Final Fantasy VII than an actual greatsword.

[Fouredged Sword]

And would have a hilt sized for huge hands. That three inch thick bar is hard to hold even if the blade is much the same.

[LordDeath666]

My character is a 4 armed Goliath so would that play into anything with the rules?

[LordDeath666]

And another question.
I got TWF, ITWF and GTWF then drank a "potion of randomness" ( a rare Homebrew item that has you roll a D% and you are granted the result) and I got "double usable arms". Would the TWF and the others become the multiweapon fighting equivalent

[KillianHawkeye]

It is worth noting that an optional rule that many DMs inadvertantly use is that a large shortsword is the same as a medium longsword, and a huge shortsword is the same as a medium greatsword. The default rules however are that, while a huge shortsword may be two handed like a greatsword, and deal 2d6 damage like a greatsword, it would also come with an associated -4 penalty for being two size categories wrong.

This isn't really true, because an oversized shortsword still just does piercing damage whereas the longsword and greatsword both do slashing damage.

[Thurbane]

It is worth noting that an optional rule that many DMs inadvertantly use is that a large shortsword is the same as a medium longsword, and a huge shortsword is the same as a medium greatsword.

IIRC, this (or something very like it) was RAW in 3.0, and got nerfed in 3.5.

[RaiKirah]

And another question.
I got TWF, ITWF and GTWF then drank a "potion of randomness" ( a rare Homebrew item that has you roll a D% and you are granted the result) and I got "double usable arms". Would the TWF and the others become the multiweapon fighting equivalent

I do believe that would be the case. You should also consider picking up Multitasking from Savage Species to be able to use both sets of arms for simultaneous partial actions ie. casting a spell and full attacking, or full attacking two adjacent enemies with TWF routines.

[Crake]

My character is a 4 armed Goliath so would that play into anything with the rules?

the 4 arms won't change anything, but goliaths are able to wield one size category larger without penalty, so you could wield a large shortsword as a light weapon, or a huge shortsword as a one handed weapon with a -2 penalty (though a large longsword would deal the same damage with the same handedness, but without the -2 penalty)


I do believe that would be the case. You should also consider picking up Multitasking from Savage Species to be able to use both sets of arms for simultaneous partial actions ie. casting a spell and full attacking, or full attacking two adjacent enemies with TWF routines.

You don't need a feat to do that, you can just target whichever enemies you want with each of your individual attacks.

[death390]

And another question.
I got TWF, ITWF and GTWF then drank a "potion of randomness" ( a rare Homebrew item that has you roll a D% and you are granted the result) and I got "double usable arms". Would the TWF and the others become the multiweapon fighting equivalent

uh no, there are separate feats for multiweapon fighting.

[RedWarlock]

uh no, there are separate feats for multiweapon fighting.

Separate feats, but retraining TWF into MWF should be an easy option, with a little time investment. They serve the same purposes, and MWF is explicitly listed as the replacement for TWF for characters with more than two arms.

[RaiKirah]

You don't need a feat to do that, you can just target whichever enemies you want with each of your individual attacks.

Sorry, I wasn't being clear; the feat allows you to make separate full attack actions with each set of arms. Effectively you get two full attacks, which for a multiweapon fighting creature means you get another set of iteratives, in addition to the offhand attacks.

[KillianHawkeye]

You should also consider picking up Multitasking from Savage Species to be able to use both sets of arms for simultaneous partial actions ie. casting a spell and full attacking, or full attacking two adjacent enemies with TWF routines.


Sorry, I wasn't being clear; the feat allows you to make separate full attack actions with each set of arms. Effectively you get two full attacks, which for a multiweapon fighting creature means you get another set of iteratives, in addition to the offhand attacks.

Read it again. You're incorrect about what this feat does.

It lets you perform separate "partial actions" on your turn with each pair of arms you have. A partial action was a 3.0 term for when you could only take a single Standard Action, such as during a surprise round, or the extra action when you were hasted (back before 3.5 nerfed it), or if you're slowed or are a zombie.

Using this feat won't let you take Full Attacks on your turn at all, because you're essentially trading your Full-Round Action for multiple Standard Actions. Nowhere in the feat's text does it even mention making Full Attacks.

[RaiKirah]

Huh, guess I did misunderstand the feat. Well, it's less interesting than I thought it was. Nuts :(

[Buufreak]

Can I suggest a solution? I once made a goliath that focused on wielding massive blades in combat based on Theocoles, the Shadow of Death. Look into the feat "oversized two weapon fighting" and "exotic weapon proficient: full blade." By the text, large creatures (which a goliath qualifies as due to powerful build) can one hand them with the feat. You have the added bonus of extra arms, so get 4 and start swinging for 2d8s.

[Fouredged Sword]

Can I suggest a solution? I once made a goliath that focused on wielding massive blades in combat based on Theocoles, the Shadow of Death. Look into the feat "oversized two weapon fighting" and "exotic weapon proficient: full blade." By the text, large creatures (which a goliath qualifies as due to powerful build) can one hand them with the feat. You have the added bonus of extra arms, so get 4 and start swinging for 2d8s.

I think there is a 4 handed sword somewhere...

You can also use a large greatsword and a large shortsword AND a heavy shield.

You get the tasty 1.5x str on your main hand attacks, the lower penalty for a light offhand weapon, AND a shield's AC bonus.

[Buufreak]

I think there is a 4 handed sword somewhere...

You can also use a large greatsword and a large shortsword AND a heavy shield.

You get the tasty 1.5x str on your main hand attacks, the lower penalty for a light offhand weapon, AND a shield's AC bonus.

Or you can do the extra hand rule from savage species that gives an extra .5x strength for each extra hand.

Tried that build too, had the 6 arm obad blessed template, my spear was 1dx + 3.5xstr. He hit hard.

[Darrin]

Separate feats, but retraining TWF into MWF should be an easy option, with a little time investment. They serve the same purposes, and MWF is explicitly listed as the replacement for TWF for characters with more than two arms.

There's no "retraining" involved. TWF is replaced with MWF as soon as you are in a form that has more than two "hands".

Presumably, Improved TWF and Greater TWF should immediately be swapped with their MWF counterparts. However, the Improved MWF and Greater MWF feats were not updated correctly in 3.5, as they still have the higher Dex and higher BAB prereqs from 3.0, so the RAW isn't entirely clear on whether they immediately replace their TWF counterparts if you don't meet the 3.0 prereqs. You can invoke the "minor adjustments" clause from DMG p. 4 to rectify this, but if you're a RAW purist it may be a bit of a pickle for you.


Huh, guess I did misunderstand the feat. Well, it's less interesting than I thought it was. Nuts :(

Having multiple standard actions in a round can still be pretty darned interesting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?525401-Iron-Chef-Optimisation-Challenge-in-the-Playground-LXXXVI/page3&p=22074602#post22074602).

[RaiKirah]

Having multiple standard actions in a round can still be pretty darned interesting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?525401-Iron-Chef-Optimisation-Challenge-in-the-Playground-LXXXVI/page3&p=22074602#post22074602).

Alright, that's awesome! Assuming the readied actions thing flies, you could probably use the same trick with Shadowpounce with items to trigger it or even just the Shuffle spell. Hmmmm... :D

[Thurbane]

uh no, there are separate feats for multiweapon fighting.

As already pointed out by Darrin, once you have mutlple arms, MWF replaces TWF.


Special
This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.

[RedWarlock]

As already pointed out by Darrin, once you have mutlple arms, MWF replaces TWF.

Replaces it in functionality, but I don't think it literally swaps the feat instantly for someone who suddenly gains extra arms.

[Darrin]

Replaces it in functionality, but I don't think it literally swaps the feat instantly for someone who suddenly gains extra arms.

The RAW on MWF is sketchy, but any other interpretation gets obtusely aggravating for no meaningful benefit.

[RedWarlock]

The RAW on MWF is sketchy, but any other interpretation gets obtusely aggravating for no meaningful benefit.

Suspension of disbelief/story cohesiveness? If I was writing a story, and had a magical effect that suddenly, permanently granted my literary character two extra arms, without also magically rewriting how my entire martial training history and reflexive systems worked, I would be fine with accepting a few days downtime to come to terms with my character's new physical abilities, concordant with the time the book offers for a character to retrain TWF into MWF, and so forth. Doing otherwise (like if the character gained this effect after one encounter, and ten minutes later fought in a new battle, using all the new limbs to perfect ability) smacks of narrative hyper-convenience, and would get thrown out by my editors.

[Remuko]

Suspension of disbelief/story cohesiveness? If I was writing a story, and had a magical effect that suddenly, permanently granted my literary character two extra arms, without also magically rewriting how my entire martial training history and reflexive systems worked, I would be fine with accepting a few days downtime to come to terms with my character's new physical abilities, concordant with the time the book offers for a character to retrain TWF into MWF, and so forth. Doing otherwise (like if the character gained this effect after one encounter, and ten minutes later fought in a new battle, using all the new limbs to perfect ability) smacks of narrative hyper-convenience, and would get thrown out by my editors.

a book isnt a game and vice-versa. "narrative hyper-convenience" is a good thing in a game, because it keeps things moving along instead of bogging things down with needless paperwork.

[Darrin]

Suspension of disbelief/story cohesiveness? If I was writing a story, and had a magical effect that suddenly, permanently granted my literary character two extra arms, without also magically rewriting how my entire martial training history and reflexive systems worked, I would be fine with accepting a few days downtime to come to terms with my character's new physical abilities, concordant with the time the book offers for a character to retrain TWF into MWF, and so forth. Doing otherwise (like if the character gained this effect after one encounter, and ten minutes later fought in a new battle, using all the new limbs to perfect ability) smacks of narrative hyper-convenience, and would get thrown out by my editors.

There's a history under the 3.0 rules that essentially supports this. The original version of girallon's blessing has rules language that says:

"The new limbs can be confusing. In a stressful or demanding situation, such as combat, the subject must make a Will save (DC 19) or take a –2 penalty on all attack rolls, saves, skill checks, and ability checks until the situation passes."

Arms of the Naga (Savage Species) has similar language. However, this mechanic stands in stark contrast to *EVERY SINGLE OTHER* transformation or polymorph effect in the 3.x canon, which has no problem with druids or wizards or bear warriors transforming into non-humanoid creatures with no "adjustment" penalties. I think it's pretty clear that the designers looked down that road, saw it was more trouble than it's worth, and decided to go a different direction.

As far as attempting to achieve "realism" in D&D goes, gonna give you a big "NOPE", not gonna go there. Been around here too long to fall for that. If your group likes to make things internally consistent/narratively cohesive and it works well for you, then excelsior!